Freddy Jordan Mendoza v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDDY JORDAN MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70885
Agency No. A087-448-857
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Freddy Jordan Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Mendoza claims a fear of future mistreatment on account of a particular
social group of long-term residents of the United States who are Mexican nationals
being sent back to Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Mendoza failed to establish a nexus between his social group and the criminal
harm he fears. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009)
(the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Thus, Mendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Finally, we grant respondent’s motion to withdraw its previous non-
opposition to a stay of removal, and we deny Mendoza’s request for a stay of
removal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70885 2

-- 2 of 2 --